Even if we find all things common to EVERY SINGLE PERSON EVER, how would you deal with ANYTHING that's NOT common for everyone?

I totally get your analysis, but I find it's rather arbitrary in placing value on some types of labour over another (animal husbandry over agriculture) and considering what is "one's own" and what "isn't one's own". Was god a meat lover? I don't know, but that's just the thing. All I think that passage is really doing is rationalizing the sacrifice of animals, but I digress. There's quite a bit of artistic licence going on with what you're saying and I don't think the Bible passage honestly tells us that much (it's like ten verses), so it's a stretch to take it seriously as a metaphor for a dystopia in which everybody is exactly the same.

--

I don't know why there should be such a big fear of collectivism. It seems that whenever such a suggestion is brought up, people automatically think "we can't have that cuz everybody will be the same and it'll takes away /my/ individuality". I think you've answered your own question in your question, society wouldn't deal with what's not common for all people. <- again though, society is interpreted in this statement to be this monster that takes away individualism. Of course society affects everything that's human, but some of us think of it differently, that there's a separation between what is social and what is individual.

Anyways, I think we can all agree on society's role in promoting our common interests, since society is held in common. And so a perfect society would involve the perfect promotion of common interests.

eNot the Bible. That Old Testament is a choppy, simplified tool meant as an addendum for the New Testament. I meant the Tanakh - the full, complete, and unedited Old Testament. Just clarifying.

--

That's sounds good and well and I would LOVE a society that focused more on everyone's common interest than a few elites filling their pockets. But if a society ignores uncommon issues, those issues will continue to stack up until disrest grows too high. You can say this wouldn't work since the uncommon issues would become common, but the more uncommon issues arise, the faster they do so, the more overwhelmed the society will become once those issues take center stage. If you don't take care of the issues when they are uncommon, they'll grow in number and destroy the society in the end.

That's why the ideal common-only society doesn't work.

--

A perfect example of this would be law enforcement.

Speed laws, meant to keep the common issue of speed-caused disasters in check, are enforced with radars - which always glitch and mess up. When Police go against subjects with certain descriptions or in certain situations, they are TOLD to use a great amount of force to "contain" the "threat". When people are in trials where they are convicted even though they're innocent, due to fake evidence provided against them, this happens because police are told to close cases as fast as possible.

Perhaps nearly all police aren't at fault, but their way of doing things causes people to hate them. The common issue is that the Popo are bad. The uncommon issues are what cause the Popo to be bad, the majority of the time. Eventually, the uncommon issues stack (as they have) so much that disrest grows too high which is when you get riots.

That's sounds good and well and I would LOVE a society that focused more on everyone's common interest than a few elites filling their pockets. But if a society ignores uncommon issues, those issues will continue to stack up until disrest grows too high. You can say this wouldn't work since the uncommon issues would become common, but the more uncommon issues arise, the faster they do so, the more overwhelmed the society will become once those issues take center stage. If you don't take care of the issues when they are uncommon, they'll grow in number and destroy the society in the end.

That's why the ideal common-only society doesn't work.

I only proposed this society since some of us expressed fears that people would not be able be individuals in a society that manages all things in common - hence a society where only common interests are in common. Now, a society that manages common solely interests in common wouldn't work? I thought the entire point of limiting the role of society to solving common issues was to allow people to be individuals.

I'm not sure if now you're saying that society /should/ manage "uncommon" issues, since that would be counter to individual freedom - which you've expressed is important. Wouldn't uncommon issues be solved by whomever finds them important?

Quote:

But if a society ignores uncommon issues, those issues will continue to stack up until disrest grows too high.

When you say something like this, it sounds as if there's no alternative to society - it implies that individuals cannot figure it out, which seems to be against a lot of what you're saying.

eNot the Bible. That Old Testament is a choppy, simplified tool meant as an addendum for the New Testament. I meant the Tanakh - the full, complete, and unedited Old Testament. Just clarifying.

--

That's sounds good and well and I would LOVE a society that focused more on everyone's common interest than a few elites filling their pockets. But if a society ignores uncommon issues, those issues will continue to stack up until disrest grows too high. You can say this wouldn't work since the uncommon issues would become common, but the more uncommon issues arise, the faster they do so, the more overwhelmed the society will become once those issues take center stage. If you don't take care of the issues when they are uncommon, they'll grow in number and destroy the society in the end.

That's why the ideal common-only society doesn't work.

--

A perfect example of this would be law enforcement.

Speed laws, meant to keep the common issue of speed-caused disasters in check, are enforced with radars - which always glitch and mess up. When Police go against subjects with certain descriptions or in certain situations, they are TOLD to use a great amount of force to "contain" the "threat". When people are in trials where they are convicted even though they're innocent, due to fake evidence provided against them, this happens because police are told to close cases as fast as possible.

Perhaps nearly all police aren't at fault, but their way of doing things causes people to hate them. The common issue is that the Popo are bad. The uncommon issues are what cause the Popo to be bad, the majority of the time. Eventually, the uncommon issues stack (as they have) so much that disrest grows too high which is when you get riots.

hmm... well i would be shocked by that stuff about the Old testament buuuut i did find it weird that it was that short when it's suppose to be the Judaism belief system book... then again there are different bibles (i have two, one i kings james i think and one that not only puts the words in present speech patterns but on the opposite page explain what is happening... it feels weird reading it) hmm... =w= ima take a peek at dat.

---

also, i don't quite get why keeping generally have a problem with police, they seem very good and follow conduct most of the time. I als realize that they aren't robots and may take action that is affected by there regular life.

then u got all the law that they have to protect that get people infuriated. i think there is/was one in a stage on the West side that banned skateboarding at night. So people clearly were angry when the police get em because of the law (cause people wouldn't generally know about it).

If we're talking about uncommon events, hiccups in the orderly working of society, mistakes, and that sort of things, then that's where you have rules and some kind of judicial system in place. It's like a prenuptial agreement. We agree that when something goes wrong this and this and this are the actions that need to be taken.

Of course that kind of agreement implies that you have the right to refuse and I don't know what would be done with people who refuse. It almost feels like that kind of society would turn people out to stay perfect.

OH! I knew that awkward phrasing would come back to slap me in the face sooner or later. By uncommon issues all we mean are issues that aren't common to us all Not that they don't happen most of the time or anything.

I don't think we have the right to refuse the laws of the lands as they are already And we're nowhere close to being perfect.

Uhm... Gay Rights. It was small, and no one paid attention to it until now, and here we are with the issue so out of hand that Chick-Fil-A got rich. What a TERRIBLE outcome! (That's sarcasm, but you get what I mean.)

ANY society that controls the population MUST handle every issue - if not, those issues will spiral out of control when no one's paying attention. Sure, I'd like it if self-rule was how things worked, but any society that doesn't can't focus on certain issues and not others.

Finding common likes is great for making cliques but it turns into something different when those cliques become political parties.

--

The police operate by the design required by their government. Their govt pays them little to nothing for their work. They can then get more in their salary by closing cases faster, giving out more tickets, putting the fear of Law into people, etc. So they DO do these things and people hate them even more for it, which ends up turning into riots.

The popo aren't inherently bad. But the system by which they operate and must follow IS bad, which makes THEM look bad.

--

I agree with the right to refuse. I love individual will, so laws and rules being optional would work for me. A great example of this would be Obamacare - you can't refuse it. Period. It's not like Obamacare will kiss babies every Tuesday or end world hunger. It really shouldn't be REQUIRED. But it is.

Yeah but who said a society has to control people? People can achieve things together that they couldn't do apart. This can be done voluntarily to a degree, but in our society, we can achieve more if some things are compelled upon us by force.

I think I've said this before, but the reason you can't refuse Obamacare is because Obamacare can't refuse you. It's universal, after all. If this reciprocal not refusing is not present, Obamacare wouldn't work and it'd be same old same old.

My view on the perfect society is extremely nuanced, and most of you probably wouldn't agree. By "perfect society", of course, I mean "as good as a society gets" (as opposed to a society that is flawless or otherwise utopian).

A dichotomy which I view to be pretty central in conceptualizing an ideal/perfect society is the tension between individual freedom of speech and action, and social stability. Both terms are very vague, as you note. But I think the price of armchair theorizing is non-ambiguity. It is at this tension that I direct my concern.

Is there a tension?

At a very commonsense level, it would seem to be so. If the society makes no effort to stop or even discourage misuse of personal freedom, stability at the level of social structure would doubtless be compromised. That's the whole premise of laws. So I think we could safely agree on the existence of the tension.

The perfect society

I begin my argument by noting that individual freedom of choice is curbed either by law, or non-legal social ramifications. For example, using the N-word in public may not be punishable by law, but the practice is still curbed (to an extent) because of general social discouragement. This is what I mean when I say non-legal social ramifications.

Now. In my conception of the perfect society, the value of social stability would be significantly higher than that of individual choice. For example, in such a society, free speech wouldn't always be a virtue. Some forms of speech, in addition to being frowned upon, might even be penalized. One example of such punishable forms of speech would be anti-ethnic movements.

I understand that censorship hasn't really fared well in history. So in order to prevent a slippery slope, extremely precise legal injunctions would need to be in place, defining on non-arbitrary terms what does and does not count as, say, hate speech. I know this is really hard to picture, but I don't think it's impossible at all. A group of lawmakers can indeed be mature enough to produce non-arbitrary criteria of partial censorship.

The premise of this is the following dictum: there are no victimless crimes. I'm not going to justify this dictum here, that would probably require a lengthy philosophical discourse. Let's just take it for granted.

Contrary to popular opinion, I do actually think things like WBC protests against children's funeral do indeed have victims, in that it plays a significant role in forming public opinion. Why should that matter? That's where the importance of social stability comes into play. As noted earlier, social stability is maintained through the instrumentality of law and non-legal social ramifications. Both are important. Without the second one in place adequately, social stability may be compromised to varying extents. So to maintain "good" social values (and in turn to protect social stability), curbing some forms of free speech is warranted.

The crucial question though is, who determines the "good" values a society as a whole should embrace?

Well, I don't have a simple answer for this. The only solution to my mind is to ground such values in some necessary axioms, like Thomas Jefferson did when he said "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

My portrayal of the perfect society would have to have more precise self-evident truths than simply the equality of all men, I suppose.

Anyways, I hold these views pretty loosely, but to my mind this is a central aspect to a perfect society. Sorry for sounding so conservative, but I wouldn't dislike being proven wrong on these points. Honestly!

The perfect society could be somewhere, or something, that would benefit the common good. That said, it already seems to be a broad idea :/.

The concept WAS toyed around by Plato before too...the Eternal Realm (where the soul flourishes and all is perfect) > Material World (governed by the mind and body, therefore imperfect) ...from this, in Plato's view, we can gather that a utopia would be a place where the soul thrives.

Others could be communism, libertarianism, authoritarianism...

Unfortunately, due to moral relativity and lack of absolutes, we'll never attain a perfect society for the common good because of relativism, conflicting opinions, etc.

I believe this is a good point to speak of my full desire for this world and how I think things should go from now on.

As I said before, I desire the world to have every type of society. This way, people can move between those societies to find the ones they feel as if they better belong to. A peasant in a Monarchy may like the monarch to handle all of their problems, a right-wing conservative would love any society that operated under a proper level of tradition, an anarchic society would allow self-rule and operate under poetic justice where the only crime is going against another's liberty, etc. We could even have a larger Catholic State - that is to say, an expanded Rome.

^ All of these societies would exist and more... And in that world, if a society does not exist to someone's standards, another one could be created - with Virtual Reality and Terraforming, territory and resources would no longer be an issue.

We are not there yet. But we ARE close, and as a futurist, I have to decide on which path the world should take in order to get there. I have found this solution:

Destruction of representative democracy, creation and application of E-Democracy, and the allowance of world citizenship and other globalized actions such as the sponsoring of adventurers to go and handle problems throughout the world.

Rep. Dem.

Representative Democracy was a great idea - one of the best ideas ever conceived in human history, for it allowed the common (wo)man to have his/her say without having to interrupt their own lives. They could elect someone who represented their interests and the nation would go they way the elector wanted, while allowing the elector to continue living as they desire.

Unfortunately, as time has gone on, population has come to destroy the effectiveness of this system. The minority may look the same in percentage, but 5:150 turning into 5,000:150,000 shows a greater level of disrest. And because of the population increase, issues are rising far quicker than before - so fast, in fact, that representatives can't keep up with the changes.

E-Democracy

E-Democracy allows for direct democracy to its fullest extent - everyone can not only vote on issues directly, and re-vote on those same issues, but also get things done FASTER than they are done with representative democracy.

This allows further liberty on the part of the people with easier and more active participation in all affairs - from local to global. In terms of global affairs, everyone in the world can vote to make world decisions without needing a Rep. force like the U.N. Rather, another organization will do as the world votes, and handle global citizenship.

Global Citizenship

This has been a popular concept for some years - frustrated with their nations or wanting to be part of a more global perspective, many people have wanted to attain global citizenship on top of or instead of national citizenship. Wanderers, like gypsies, would be great examples of world citizens while those who operate in multiple nations throughout the world would benefit from it as well. This citizenship shows the nations you go to that your loyalty is to the world - which shows that you mean them no harm; that is, unless it's an addendum to a national citizenship which is at war with the nation you go to. But even then, those of the enemy nation know you are from their enemy's land, so they will respect your openness and watch you - knowing you aren't a spy, and making sure you don't go in areas they don't want you to. This is an act of trust. And trust is something people need amongst one another now more than ever.

Adventuring

The concept of adventuring has grown to astounding heights in recent years, with the influence of video games - especially MMOs. It is seen as exploring, where the adventurer is able to find challenges and enjoyment, which aids themself and those they help.

There are generally 3 types of adventurers: Military, Mercenary, and Hero.

Military Adventurers are like mercenaries but operate under the standards of the military they are working with, which pays them easily as the adventurer goes along, completing missions (aka quests). Military adventurers are allowed leave, but not in times of extreme conflict. Militaries would hire adventurers to complete things they can't do - such as scouting certain areas, killing the enemy when it goes against the soldiers' ability, or doing extra tasks the soldiers are too busy to handle. This is a very effective manner of adventuring and requires the least amount of risk - not as much physical but monetary and political. Military adventurers are currently the most popular in MMOs. TERA and Neverwinter are great examples of military adventuring.

The second type, mercenary adventurers, would rely on guilds. Like in Fairy Tail, they would need to find "jobs" (which act as quests, just as missions do). The guild system would help them get these jobs easier. They will get paid their rewards at the end of the job, rather than at different points during it, and don't have to operate under standards like military adventurers. Merc adventuring is represented in Vindictus in two different ways so far - a town militia and a merc guild, which each aid the areas they are in in different ways.

The last type, the heroic adventurer, is the type heard of in legends. They often do not ask for rewards for their actions, though it is seen as rude to deny a reward offered. These adventurers are the ones that would require world citizenship and would be most respected, as they exist to further the good of all peoples rather than simply aid a specific military or serve their own interests. They desire fame more than fortune and want stories of valor rather than large mansions. These adventurers operate under their own personal codes and are often offered a nice place to retire by different lands they helped, where they can teach others about heroics as a good role model.

Why adventuring?

Many people may not notice this - but our world is in dire need of adventurers. We have an absurd amount of bounties and little to no bounty hunters. Issues like Kony require a much more adventurous hand than a soldier's or a peacemaker's. Issues like the ones in Somalia require heroes to help quell the people and help those that need aid, during the conflict - after all, the issue there is much more situational that many think and the focus on that issue keeps people from looking at the suffering of the innocents affected by the conflict. Lastly, countries like the UAE have a desire for peaceful action, so they don't want to go to war with other nations. Adventurers would benefit them since they can handle issues the UAE can't politically.

Adventuring would help calm down the problems of the world, allowing world citizenship to flourish, people to be able to use their liberties more, and would generate a clean slate for turning the world into a community of utopias. Adventuring would also decrease the disastrous effects of World War III, if it were to occur. And since many in the current generation have learned what adventuring is, means, and how to do it properly, it won't be a hard thing to implement.

How these lead to...

By destroying Rep. Dem. and allowing E-Democracy, politics are affected by more liberty. This then affects the societies of the world. By having world citizenship, adventuring etc, the world becomes even more globalized which opens everyone up to one another. This then makes it easier for people to shift into proper types of societies later on, and the societies themselves are anarchic.* That is to say - politically and economically, it may not be anarchic, but socially, all societies would be anarchic to the extent where globalization would still be in effect and people moving between societies would not be an odd thing at all. And because the adventuring system would already be in place, various peoples could get issues handled no matter if they are nationally affiliated, have military power or not, regardless of status, etc.

*A good example of this is MLP:FIM.My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic's main nation, Equestria, is politically Monarchic, economically Capitalist, and socially Anarchic. It also ended up being egalitarian, as is ideal in an anarchic society.

"Innocence most often is a good fortune and not a virtue." - Anatole France

"Where choice begins, Paradise ends, innocence ends, for what is Paradise but the absence of any need to choose this action?" - Arthur Miller

I don't accept any possible society as being perfect, and the ones most displayed as perfect are by far the most reckless as they always involve a people willingly allowing themselves to be controlled through supposed 'democracy' and force others into living under their morals instead of taking up their own responsibilities and letting others live the way they choose (which is obviously expected since most of the real world is heading towards giving fewer people more centralized control). Not to mention, no 'perfect' society is created by taking every variable that even counters its creation in mind.

Ah, The Giver. I had to read it in 5th grade. The book itself wasn't very interesting, but the concept of a utopia was. While there can probably never be a perfect society, the closest we could get would be one in which everyone is unique, educated, and given nice tv shows to watch as little kids like Sesame Street and Arthur as oppose to stupid shows like Spongebob.

__________________

I like Sandshrews. A lot. I am Sandshrews number 1 fan. And don't you deny it.
My friend code for White 2 is 4857 7379 4725

Innocence = Ignorance. Ignorance = Inaction. Action = Change. If the world is imperfect, it can only be perfect if it is changed.

Lack of action is worse than any action at all. Innocence is a a fake bliss which ignores the problems around oneself. And without action, everyone can be controlled by those other than themselves - to the point of complete dictatorship, which only generates a fake utopia.

This is seen in Brave New World and 1984, two of the greatest dystopian books of all time. In them, it is explained that every utopia is a dystopia. A utopia like that must operate under ignorance and innocence, as the bliss of the people allows the rulers to do as they desire, which often means completely controlling the people - without them even realizing how they're being controlled.

The PokéCommunity

Meta

Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.